Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Online "Swatting" Becomes a Hazard For Gamers Who Play Live On the Internet

Posted by samzenpus on from the hands-up-controllers-down dept.

HughPickens.com writes Nick Wingfield reports at the NYT that practical jokers who call in bogus reports of violence provoking huge police responses have set their sights on a new set of victims: video gamers who play live on the Internet, often in front of huge online audiences. Last month, several hundred people were watching Joshua Peters as he played RuneScape from his parents' home as video showed Peters suddenly leaving his computer when police officers appeared at the house and ordered him and his family at gunpoint to lie face down on the ground after some had called 911 claiming Peters had just shot his roommate. "With the live-streaming platforms, it amplifies the entire situation," says James Clayton Eubanks who says he has been swatted about a half-dozen times while he streamed his Call of Duty sessions. "Not only do they get to do this and cause this misery, they get to watch it unfold in front of thousands of people."

Game companies like Twitch have publicly said that swatting is dangerous, but that there is little else they can do to prevent the pranks. Tracking the culprits behind the pranks is difficult. While bomb scares and other hoaxes have been around for decades, making threats anonymously has never been so easy. Swatters use text messages and online phone services like Skype to relay their threats, employing techniques to make themselves hard to trace. They obtain personal addresses for their victims through property records and other public databases, or by tricking businesses or customer service representatives at a victim's Internet provider into revealing the information. Brandon Willson, a gamer known online as "Famed God," made up a murder to get police to go to an unsuspecting west suburban resident's home last year and ended up behind bars in Nevada awaiting extradition. As part of the investigation, police traveled to Las Vegas to help local police execute a search warrant at Willson's home. Computers seized there contained evidence of the swatting incident, as well as similar incidents across the country, prosecutors claim. Willson faces up to five years in prison if he is convicted on charges of computer tampering and one count each of intimidation, computer fraud, identity theft and disorderly conduct. His mother, Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos. "He would never swat," she says.

66 of 569 comments (clear)

  1. Idiot Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > His mother, Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos. "He would never swat," she says.

    With a mother as stupid as this, no wonder he's behaving like an asshole.

    1. Re: Idiot Parents by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In defense of the mother:

      1) When people are arrested, their friends, family, and neighbors routinely say "I can't believe he did that. He seemed like such a nice guy."

      2) Parents naturally want to see the good in their children and will ignore any bad warning signs lest their kid be anything less than perfect. (Disclosure: I'm a father of two and while I think they are mostly good kids, they are far from perfect.)

      Some people are just really good at hiding their misdeeds or limiting their wrongdoings to specific areas. (e.g. Calling 911 on people playing video games.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Idiot Parents by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Informative

      > His mother, Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos. "He would never swat," she says.

      With a mother as stupid as this, no wonder he's behaving like an asshole.

      No kidding. Both nature and nurture are against him.

    3. Re: Idiot Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point isn't that his mother thinks he's innocent, it's that she thinks smoking, drinking and tattoos are in some way relevant to that judgement.

    4. Re:Idiot Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "He never even whacks off. Really!"

    5. Re: Idiot Parents by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your statement, "she took the job" in no way refutes what Jason Levine just said.

      The first guy said to give the parents a break because parenting is hard. The second guy said "she took the job", obviously implying you shouldn't have kids unless you are prepared to do a good job at that very hard job. Sounds like he was refuting exactly what the first poster said. Be careful about calling people stupid when you can't understand a very simple argument (regardless of whether or not you agree with it).

      There are plenty of very tough jobs in this world. My job is a lot more difficult than raising my daughter is (although not a more important job than being a dad). But I can't just shrug and say my job is tough if I fail at work. I took a job where I knew the responsibilities and challenges were significant, both at home and work, so now it is my duty to do well at both.

      That said, even the best of kids can make horrible mistakes, so you would need to know quite a bit about the home dynamic before immediately blaming the parents. From personal experience I would say these kids' parents are more than likely bad parents, but it would be idiotic for me to just assume they are. Even good kids can be convinced to do bad things through peer pressure, for instance.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    6. Re: Idiot Parents by zennyboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Precisely; I am a father of two. I believe I have done a very good job.

      Just say one of my kids 'goes rogue' and... shoplifts. Does that suddenly mean I did a bad job?

      Even if I did teach right from wrong from birth? At some age you have to understand children think for themselves, know right from wrong, and maybe just choose wrong.

      I do not believe this should reflect on (me | us) as (a) parent(s)...

    7. Re: Idiot Parents by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In defense of the mother:

      1) When people are arrested, their friends, family, and neighbors routinely say "I can't believe he did that. He seemed like such a nice guy."

      I've noticed this a lot, and so told my parents that if I'm ever arrested and the media come asking you've got to say "yeah he was a real dick, I'm glad he got busted". It'd be worth it just for the reaction. I'm also a parent and have a list of stupid quotes ready just in case my kids get caught doing something stupid (we all do stupid things, but only some of us get caught). The media are fuckwits, they don't deserve to be taken seriously.

    8. Re: Idiot Parents by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just say one of my kids 'goes rogue' and... shoplifts. Does that suddenly mean I did a bad job?

      No, and you also might think "She would never do that." That doesn't make you an "idiot parent", despite what the OAC said.

    9. Re: Idiot Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your mother did a terrible job at teaching you not to be a dick.

      Everybody thinks they're smarter and would catch all this crazy stuff until it happens to them.

    10. Re: Idiot Parents by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the point is rather that the mother thinks that just keeping him from smoking, drinking and getting inked up means that he is not a swatter... ...ironically, when if he had been drinking and smoking with inked up friends, he probably would not have swatted or even thought of swatting some people on twitch.

      sounds like the guy was really, really really fucking bored.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    11. Re: Idiot Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      asocial transgressive behavior like swatting does not require alcohol consumption, nor any drug consumption. it's a function of personality, which is more a reflection on upbringing, family/ social problems

      so the mother is more likely deflecting and avoiding blame for a behavior which is a reflection on her, and, grasping at straws, picks easy shallow bogeymen to blame instead rather than accept responsibility. which, as a psychological defense mechanism, is also reflected in her son's behavior: don't take a loss, push it out there and make someone else take a punishment for your failures

      that being said, there is obviously a relationship between alcohol consumption and petty criminal behavior. especially among the young

      people take drugs to become less inhibited. when less inhibited, they display faulty judgment. with faulty judgment, they do things which get them in trouble

      so, the tattoos and the smoking: yeah, that's stupid

      but inquiring as to whether he consumed alcohol regularly or not: completely relevant and valid

      I disagree pretty much entirely. The mother is simply displaying a failure of logic, in that she is assuming that because her child does not do Bad Thing A then it means the child cannot possibly do Bad Things B, C, and D.
      Which is probably only party her fault, as she has most likely been told that by various Religious and Law Enforcement Groups. (see the Logical Fallacy known as the 'Gateway Drug' argument for an example)

      I've known plenty of people who smoked and had alcohol problems but would never SWAT anybody, and people who have an absolute hatred of any sort of substance abuse who would SWAT their own mother for a quick laugh.
      But to address you point more directly, the use of substances does often lead to less inhibited behavior, but in most cases it does NOT lead to behavior that you are not already somewhat pre-disposed to engage in. If you're not a thief, you're not going to steal just because you got drunk or high, just like you're not going to go kill someone unless you're already the type of person who would feel no qualms in doing so. The booze and etc. simply make you less likely to give a shit about getting caught, or alter your judgement enough to make you think you can get away with it when you probably won't.
      I've been smashed drunk and stoned off my ass many times in situations where I could have stolen, raped, or even killed and never been caught. But I never even thought about doing those things, because I'm not a Thief, a Rapist, or a Murderer.

    12. Re:Idiot Parents by Fjandr · · Score: 4, Informative

      SOP in the USA. SWAT is used overwhelmingly in cases they have no business being used in. A tiny, tiny minority of their deployments are actually for circumstances the teams were put together to confront (hostage & active shooter).

    13. Re: Idiot Parents by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wasn't saying "give parents a break because parenting is hard." I said that parents naturally want to see the good in their kids and not the bad. I do recognize when my children do something wrong and I will have serious discussions with them (backed up with punishment if need be) to explain why the action is wrong, what they should have done instead, and what the consequences of the action could have been. That being said, nobody wants to think they're doing a bad job at something. Especially when it comes to parenting. (We'll leave out those "parents" - and I use the term loosely - that don't seem to care about their kids and/or actively hurt their kids. Those people don't deserve the title "Parent.")

      I hate to compare parenting to the Nigerian scams, but think of this as a similar principle. If you get hooked in a Nigerian scam, your options are to a) admit you were wrong and were fooled or b) keep believing that the whole thing is true and you weren't wrong. It can be very hard for people to admit that they were wrong/fooled so they persist with option B long past the time when any objective observer would say there was the slightest possibility that they would see any return.

      Similarly, in parenting, there's a drive to think of yourself as a good parent and this means (in part) thinking that you've raised your kid right. If you raised your kid right, they should be able to make appropriate decisions about what to do and what not to do. So parents can easily fall into the trap of just assuming that their kid is turning out ok while not seeing warning signs of bad activity. It's a blind spot that parents can be tempted not to check.

      The mother in the article likely fell into this trap and ignored warning signs. It doesn't mean she's a bad mother. The guy who was arrested was 19. Maybe he was very respectful to her, had a steady job, and just played some games online during his free time. To her direct observation, she wouldn't have seen anything wrong. As he was 19, I wouldn't expect her to supervise his every action, which means that bad behavior could be easily missed.

      Parents have a big impact in their kids' lives, but we can only do so much. When our children get older, we just need to hope that the lessons we've imparted are stronger than any bad influences they are likely to encounter.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    14. Re: Idiot Parents by Stan92057 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Swatting is not like killing or stealing or doing drugs,"

      Tell that to the people who had guns pointed at them because of a Swatting. And im guessing you don't have any kids either? Its a serious crime buddy, nowhere near the level of a prank phone,call.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
  2. He's an Angel by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Funny

    His mother, Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos. "He would never swat," she says.

    He's a perfect angel - his mother says so.

    1. Re:He's an Angel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So was Lucifer.

  3. Tracking by jeff13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Tracking the culprits behind the pranks is difficult."

    Ummmmm, why?

    1. Re:Tracking by Fwipp · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Tracking the culprits behind the pranks is difficult."

      Ummmmm, why?

      While bomb scares and other hoaxes have been around for decades, making threats anonymously has never been so easy. Swatters use text messages and online phone services like Skype to relay their threats, employing techniques to make themselves hard to trace.

    2. Re:Tracking by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How about they not take anonymous calls like that so seriously?

      "An investigations\ by NBC reveal that the police department was alerted anonymously, with the caller informing them that the suspect possessed several types of firearms and had expressed their frustration with the victim numerous times. When asked about this apparent warning, the commissioner declined to comment. An officer working the case who spoke with NBC on the condition of anonymity revealed that they did not take the warning seriously, citing many cases in which police were sent to a location based on such warnings only to find that the warning was a hoax, leaving bills in property damage and unknown damages in lost time and personnel availability. A spokesperson for the family of the victim has stated the family's intent to sue the police department for gross negligence in this matter, and NBC has learned that the caller - later identified as the suspect's brother - is also seeking legal recourse."

      'The boy who cried wolf' tends not to apply to law enforcement, because they get run through the wringer when they decide to ignore the boy.

    3. Re:Tracking by kindbud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I feel strongly that there is a response in between ignoring anonymous calls, and roaring to the scene in full-on SWAT mode, busting down the door and giving everyone who is unlucky enough to be inside the worst day of their lives.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    4. Re:Tracking by ldobehardcore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That happy middle is called due diligence via police work. You don't send a swat team to do a detective's work, and that's exactly what more and more PDs are doing every day. It's a disgusting lack of intellectual effort on the part of the PDs, and exposes them for what they are: Soldier wannabes who are too cowardly to actually enlist.

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
    5. Re:Tracking by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea, that's called an occupational hazard, not an excuse to not do your fucking job. Jesus, if underwater welders and fishermen (wo have far, far more life-threatening jobs than any LEO) were as whiny and pussified as cops, we'd have no oil or food.

      Of course, if the detectives use their brains they can decrease their personal risk while still doing what they're paid to do. Of course that implies hiring people who actually have functioning brains... something many departments apparently have a policy against.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  4. Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dear mother, smoking, drinking and having tattoos are not good traits, but they are not necessary for someone to be a nasty criminal.

    1. Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There appears to be something really wrong with this kid if he doesn't engage in normal peer behavior.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dear mother, smoking, drinking and having tattoos are not good traits, but they are not necessary for someone to be a nasty criminal.

      Curious - what is necessarily wrong with those traits? Obviously, from the story, one can be quite devastatingly evil (causing an incident resulting in innocents at gunpoint) without them.

      Smoking gives you cancer, drinking ruins your liver and can result in uncontrolled behavior (brawls, DUIs, etc), and tattoos basically ruin your chance at a lot of jobs. They're also all correlated somewhat with anti-social behavior (of various kinds) in general, which I think was the point the mother was relying on. "Because he lacks traits correlated with bad behavior, he must not have engaged in bad behavior." Obviously, this is faulty, but mothers often aren't rational when it comes to defending their kids.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There appears to be something really wrong with this kid if he doesn't engage in normal peer behavior.

      Wait, are you serious? I honestly can't tell. When I was a lad I never smoked, because I hated the smell and didn't want to fuck up my lungs/get cancer. I didn't drink that much because everywhere I looked, people took drinking to mean drinking to excess and acting like fucking idiots, and I didn't want to become one of them (not that I don't drink now, just not that much). I wasn't interested in getting any tattoos because of their permanence, and the fact that they tend to look like rubbish as you age and stupid tattoos can't be removed without clear scarring.

      Apparently my desire at a younger age to try to think about the consequences of my action means there was something really wrong with me. If you're being serious of course.

    4. Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude, if you're here, it's obvious what you think is cool couldn't be more wrong.

      --
      That is all.
    5. Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos by Altrag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or they'll find someone who will hire them based on their skills rather than their body art.

      And then when they're 40, they'll be the ones doing the hiring. Its already not uncommon to see people with strange hair colors, tattoos, stretched earlobes, etc in various work environments, including interacting with the public. At least not where I'm from. In some places (particularly places like "trendy" clothing stores,) its getting hard to find an employee that doesn't have some form of body expression.

      And that's great. As long as you're not doing something intentionally controversial like tattooing a swastika on your forehead, employers and customers alike need to stop giving a damn about anything other than the ability of the employee to do their job. The cashier with black hair who does a good job today can do just as good a job tomorrow if she dyes it pink.

  5. Fuck those guys by the_humeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't a prank. This is attempted murder by cop.

    Also, the cops should better assess the situation before invading people's houses at gunpoint.

    1. Re:Fuck those guys by BradMajors · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The root of the problem is that police might kill someone based upon an anonymous tip.

    2. Re:Fuck those guys by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Informative

      There been reports of them killing people when they got the wrong address too. Nothing has happened that I know of about this either so I am not too confident anything would be making them think twice on a tip.

    3. Re:Fuck those guys by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bull. Death is a distinct possibility. The guy planning the bank robbery in which a teller gets killed is just as guilty, morally and legally, as the trigger man.

    4. Re:Fuck those guys by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was one case where the cops shot the father of a swatting victim. I believe the person behind the swatting attack is doing some fairly serious time though.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    5. Re:Fuck those guys by aaronb1138 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that police would respond with that level of force based upon an anonymous tip.

      The problem is more the police than the swatters. The swatters are malicious actors. The police are failing to perform as good actors by following through the least bit of due diligence in these situations. Before breaking down the door, they should at least have a seasoned, senior officer knock to see if anything seems odd first.

      The problem is a police force filled with the same adrenaline junky types that call in the swatting. They see an opportunity to break a door down and going running around in full CQC gear and they lose their composure. If they were actually interested in public safety, that wouldn't be their first impulse reaction to a potential emergency situation, negotiation and diffusal would be.

    6. Re:Fuck those guys by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. This should be charged *at the very minimum* as attempted murder (if noone is hurt). If the police do kill someone as a result of it, then it should be charged as premeditated murder and treated accordingly under the law.

    7. Re:Fuck those guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about the cops doing some time for shooting a random innocent?

    8. Re:Fuck those guys by Mike610544 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Before breaking down the door, they should at least have a seasoned, senior officer knock to see if anything seems odd first.

      They probably could respond more reasonably, but walking up to the door and knocking might be a bit reckless. What if it's not a false alarm and there's am unstable, armed murderer on the other side?

      --
      ... also, I can kill you with my brain.
    9. Re:Fuck those guys by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If a plainclothes officer knocks and pretends to be a Jehovah's Witness at first in order to access the situation, even unstable armed murderers do not have a history of shooting.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    10. Re:Fuck those guys by CrankyFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd guess that it's because the US is at the top of the list of "the person whose house you're about to invade is likely to be heavily armed."

      I spent two weeks in the UK recently, with their largely-unarmed police force in full showing (mind you, I also walked by Buckingham Palace and Parliament, where I saw very heavily armed cops). They know that the vast majority of their citizenry is similarly unarmed.

      Compare that to the US. I'm guessing SWAT officers are rather more trigger-twitchy because of that. I would be.

    11. Re:Fuck those guys by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I do wonder is why so many SWAT raids end in violence in the US when so many other countries just dont have that sort of problem. My guess is poor training.

      Other countries don't have that problem because we don't send a swat team to investigate a routine 911 call, we send a patrol car and knock on the fucking door. Sure we have swat teams, we send them in to end confirmed sieges because that is what a swat team is trained for. Also the knowledge that everyone and his dog is armed to the teeth in the US encourages the cops shoot first and make up excuses later. If you ask me the cop who shot the kid in Ferguson was a coward, he panicked because he was alone and and could not control a black kid who was bigger than him. The last people you want waving a gun around like John Wayne, are fucking cowards.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Fuck those guys by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So let me get this straight. I have been kidnapped in my home by a lunatic who threatens to kill me if I try to call the police or escape. I manage to call 911 for help, and your suggestion is that the police call me back or ask permission to enter so that the kidnapper can make good on their threat to kill me.

      1st That call wouldn't be anonymous.
      2nd While I heard of hostage/siege situations on the news, in none of them were hostages shot at the first sight of a police officer. I know this is more anecdotal and secondhand, but even from the viewpoint of an armed madman, killing your negotiation material first thing is a very bad tactic.

      it corrodes the (already strained) bond of trust between the people that need the police to protect them, the people who have to respond, and the people on the other end of that police response.

      Yes. But if you have to be afraid of a swat team raiding your house and killing your 6 year old daughter because they got the wrong address (Detroit IIRC) or anonymous callers, THAT won't help rebuild that lost trust.

      --
      bickerdyke
    13. Re:Fuck those guys by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Step one, drive past the house - no sirens or lights, just see if there's anything odd. Step two, knock on a couple of the neighbours' doors - say that you've received a non-specific report of gunfire in the area, ask if they heard anything. Step three, from somewhere inconspicuous see if you can see in through the windows with binoculars. Step four, visit the nearest take-away and have someone in plain clothes take the food to the house pretending that they misread the number, look for signs of distress from the person answering the door. Step five, surround the house with armed officers at all exits and have someone in uniform knock on the front door and ask the person who answers to step outside - if they're refusing and showing signs of distress, then go in.

      Or they could just forget all of their police training and pretend that their soldiers in enemy territory.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  6. What's the point of the NSA knowing everything? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is one of those times when our government's all knowing, all access panopticon would actually be useful. Seriously, our cops can't trace the swatters?

    1. Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything? by Nutria · · Score: 3, Insightful

      our cops can't trace the swatters?

      Maybe our government isn't the omniscient panopticon that Snowden fetishists think it is...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything? by misexistentialist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or maybe the panopticon wasn't constructed for our benefit. Random SWAT raids are good training and also pacify the population. Probably even polls well

  7. Honestly by fermion · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I don't know what drinking, smoking, or having tattoos has to do with anything. Does he have a computer? Does he use it for mischief.

    A couple cases of kids going to jail will limit the problem. Teenagers are always going to test limits, and some do so to the extent that the adult legal system is required to help motivate them not to cause problems for other people.

    It was not so long ago that the telephone was a new thing, many parents were not raised with it, and did not really know how to manage it with the kids. Kids got into trouble, and laws were passed to help define what was good and bad behavior.

    I know that adults say this all the time, but if we do not figure out how to play with our toys nicely, we are going to lose the privileged of unencumbered play.

    From a personal point of view, from personal experience, in my opinion there is no punishment too great for someone who files false police reports, and that goes doubly so for those cowards who hide behind computers.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:Honestly by dafoomie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you are suggesting the police should do is simply not practical. Who would they ask for a stream url? Do you want everyone running a stream to register with the local police? Do you want police to begin doubting every report or threat of imminent violence, endangering everyone who legitimately needs help?

      When you get a call reporting an active shooter followed by gunshots you don't check twitch, you go. You bring the amount of force necessary to deal with what may be occurring but you use the minimum amount of force necessary to take control of the situation. That no one has died yet as a result of swatting suggests that they're largely doing their jobs. Whether or not they're responding to every situation, real or fictitious with excessive force is an entirely separate issue.

      Jail IS a deterrent as these people have no expectation they will be caught and believe sentences would be light anyway. If they can become more proficient at finding these people, and sentences become more severe, it will absolutely reduce the number of incidents.

    2. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      That no one has died yet as a result of swatting suggests that they're largely doing their jobs.

      http://www.cato.org/raidmap
      http://www.sott.net/article/266876-Swat-team-shoots-innocent-man-22-times-in-front-of-his-family-case-settled-in-the-millions
      http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/misidentified-man-killed-when-swat-team-started-his-house-on-fire/
      http://www.businessinsider.com/9-horrifying-botched-police-raids-2012-2?op=1
      http://www.mintpressnews.com/video-swat-team-kills-innocent-man-drug-raid-found-just-2-marijuana/200738/
      http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/A-costly-SWAT-raid-gone-wrong-4303215.php
      http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/swat-raid-casualties

  8. "prevent the pranks" by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Funny

    Really the pranks. By that standard I suppose John Wayne Gacy was just an enthusiastic gardener.

    1. Re:"prevent the pranks" by duck_rifted · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure! And the Unibomber was just a year-round secret santa.

  9. Re:The perps by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    The perps get such a kick out of watching this unfold on streaming video. I hope they put a webcam on their prison cell so we can all watch them for the next 5 years. Those that live by the sword ....

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  10. The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters by Snotnose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is the police respond to everything with a huge over-reaction. They don't investigate, they don't use common sense, they just go in armed to the teeth ready to shoot anything that either moves or doesn't move fast enough and the hell with the consequences, as long as the consequences fall on the target, not the cops.

    How the hell did we get such a militarized police force anyway?

    1. Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Swatters have been known to intentionally act irrational/hysterical, and put time pressure on the police. They could talk about how they're going to kill someone in the next hour, and perhaps talk about how they'll kill any police that they see as well. They may tell the police that if anyone tries to call them back or contacts them in any way, they'll kill a hostage.

      This leaves the police in a quandary. In the case of the Columbine school shootings, the police were criticized for waiting too long before moving in, and subsequently changed their tactics. Now they're criticized for rushing in too soon.

      We got a militarized police force when people started holing up in places with guns, sometimes taking hostages, sometimes just killing people randomly. You talk about how they "just go in armed to the teeth ready to shoot anything that either moves or doesn't move fast enough", yet to my knowledge, no one has actually died as a result of a swatting yet, despite *many* incidents. That demonstrates that those police teams in question are showing a significant level of restraint in what, to their knowledge, may be a life-and-death situation.

      It's easy to criticize. It's a bit harder to actually figure out how to solve the problems.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How the hell did we get such a militarized police force anyway?

      Here's your answer.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  11. Re:"smoking, drinking, or tattoos"? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos

    WTF? What do smoking, drinking, and tattoos have to do with calling the freakin' SWAT in on some poor gamer? Is this some correlation I had previous not heard about?

    SWAT: Smokes Whiskey and Tattoos

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  12. Re:Double Standard? by brantondaveperson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The cops showing up at your "target's" door because you rang the cops and claimed they were waving a gun around, or whatever, is not an "indirect" result of your statement.

    It's a direct, predictable, and intended result. This is why the appropriate punishment would be attempted murder.

    That the police in the US are a dangerous force that may be abused in this manner is an entirely orthogonal issue.

  13. What's missing from this story? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do Americans automatically accept that kicking the door down and holding everyone at gunpoint is a reasonable response to an anonymous 911 call?

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:What's missing from this story? by Altrag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the PR hit for overreacting to a "threat" is far lower than the PR hit for failing to react to one (and even that's better than silently snuffing out a threat -- bad PR is better than no PR.)

      Actually protecting the public isn't all that much of a concern. And for the most part, the public likes it that way because feeling safe is more immediately obvious than being safe. The former is defined by action (the police caught some bad guys!) whereas the latter is defined by inaction (nothing terrible happened to me today..)

      Read up on security theater. I'm not sure that this would technically fall into that category, but its the same mentality nonetheless.

    2. Re:What's missing from this story? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do Americans automatically accept that kicking the door down and holding everyone at gunpoint is a reasonable response to an anonymous 911 call?

      Yes. This is the question that no one asks. Why we tolerate a culture in which police are empowered to kick in doors all the time.

    3. Re:What's missing from this story? by redscare2k4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The thing I don't get is what kind of doors you guys have in USA. I want to believe that what you see in TV is just fiction and that doors don't go down with a kick, but even then...The average door in Europe is reinforced and it would take some ram hits before going down, and that assuming the door is not bolted. Heck, the police usually needs to call the firefighters to come with their heavy duty saws when they need to evict someone. So even if police were so reckless here to enter houses guns blazing (which they don't) they would have a pretty hard time doing so.

    4. Re:What's missing from this story? by laejoh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah... a door repair man conspiracy plot!

    5. Re:What's missing from this story? by tburkhol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you were a cop and you were sent to an address in response to a 911 call claiming that there was someone at that address with a dangerous weapon, would you walk up to the door and knock politely?

      Why not talk to them via bullhorn or phone without even approaching the house? It's going to take at least 15 minutes to assemble and deploy a SWAT team - don't you think any killing the guy has started will be done by then?

      If you start with negotiation, you have at least some chance to let the adrenalin run out, get people thinking rationally about consequences, let the first pangs of guilt emerge. If you start with shocking and overwhelming force, you pretty much guarantee someone's going to get hurt. Police are supposed to be trained to deescalate situations. They may carry tools required to respond to an escalation, but they're supposed to be distinguishable from a lynch mob by their ability to remain calm and bring about peaceful resolutions. Failure of this training results in shooting of unarmed crazy people.

    6. Re:What's missing from this story? by brxndxn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think this is the bigger problem. This.. and pretty much ignoring common sense across the board when it comes to any excuse to allowing the government to become more heavy-handed (and frankly, fascist). The media will report this like 'people doing the swatting' are the problem. But, bomb threats and other similar attempts at mayhem have been around since way before the Internet and the police used to respond to them in a sensible manner. I am not saying the police should ignore a 'swat' call - but I am saying they should have some common sense before they suit up 20 officers for warlike conditions and inject them with a 'spasmodic roid rage only-for-the-movies attitude.' I don't care what a random guy on the phone says - it does not mean the other party should forfeit all of their Constitutional rights and have their front door knocked down. In all of this, I would say the biggest problem is not knocking by the police. However, this all fits if you realize the purpose of police militarization and the ridiculously disproportionately expensive warrior on terror is to move us (the US) in a fascist direction since fascism benefits the people currently pay our lawmakers (ie.. the 1%).

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
    7. Re:What's missing from this story? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why do Americans automatically accept that kicking the door down and holding everyone at gunpoint is a reasonable response to an anonymous 911 call?

      Yes. This is the question that no one asks. Why we tolerate a culture in which police are empowered to kick in doors all the time.

      a) Hollywood/media makes guns glamorous
      b) it doesn't affect us personally (until it does)
      c) there are other issues that are affecting us
      d) our leaders have no interest in the matter (with rare exception).
      e) out political system is broken

      basically, the status quo is really difficult to change because it's controlled by groups of people that only change when members of them die.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  14. Idiot parent, hell half the world is below average by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1) When people are arrested, their friends, family, and neighbors routinely say "I can't believe he did that. He seemed like such a nice guy."

    To be fair, when have you seen a news report where a friend or neighbor said, 'Yeah, he was a dangerous nut job that should have been locked up years ago. it's a shame that the SWAT team didn't just kill him and save the state the trial cost'.

    Swatting is an activity that the 'Internet' seems to think that it can get away with, because it is a novelty. Once Law enforcement accidentally kills a couple of young children by accident in a bumbled raid, you will get a couple of outraged senators who will make this a federal offense punishable with ten to twenty. The law is slow but it always catches up with society changes.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!